in a war situation do you think using a nuke would be overkill in a situation where the war could go either wat

Nuclear weapons don't only affect those in the immediate area of detonation. The nuclear fallout and radiation would quickly spread through the jet streams all over the world. And we are now realizing that the radiation from the nuclear war testing of the 1960's is now harming caribou populations, because their lichen is now radioactive. So they really are that double edged sword: Those in the target will die immediately-- the lucky ones, and everyone else will have to deal with the aftermath of excess radiation.

are you familiar with the term "heal bomb"?

man they should just bomb the damn place with any bomb that what i think in stad of having are men killed for nothing.

I'd Nukem' till they glow... after I build my super missile intercept system. :p

PS. I know they dont spell opinion like that in London :p

i say nuke them and be done with it, a country could go broke trying to prolong the war, not to mention all the soldiers that would die

I say we should just nuke the bastards. Incinerating or poisoning millions of foreigners is a small price to pay if it means preserving the lives of American soldiers.

Nukes are not the answer. As much as I would love to end a war with one shot nukes do too much to the environment to even consider using them. We kill the planet enough the way it is using the stuff we do now, why f' it up even more with nukes?

we should never have to resort to nuclear warfare or any kind of warfare.

Nuking is probably an option, but you should look at it this way. You can either kill half the nations population by war and come to a consensus/peace or just wipe out everything and help in destroying nature. It's easy to say "just nuke them" or something, but the same could happen to anybody, even the nuking nation might get hit by a nuke and then what. Eventually lives are lost, which is really sad and is bad enough with the small wars, but nuking would amass a larger body count with probably the same result, probably, it could go either way depending on the situation.

no nuks, they fuck up the planet.

what dosent fuck up the planet

Neutron Bombs don't, they just mess up the surface a bit.

They still don't discriminate between innocents and those involved in the war effort. Soldiers aren't perfect, but they at least do a better job at that.

Neutron Bombs don't, they just mess up the surface a bit.

True, but we're not that advanced to be using those now are we.

I say we should just nuke the bastards. Incinerating or poisoning millions of foreigners is a small price to pay if it means preserving the lives of American soldiers.

You ARE being sarcastic right? It sounds like you are. I hope you are.

Oh trust me we have em. we are plenty advanced. Otherwise we wouldnt have been so pissed that the chinese got their hands on the our data.

They make up less than 1% of our nuclear arsenal tho.

I weighed the options, and I believe that nuking them bastards is the best solution. Those insurgents in Iraq have done enough damage to us and their ppl, so let's just put them out of their misery. However, gun power would be a better soultion, since it could cause less casualties in the innocent numbers.

well we have bombs as powerful as nuclear weapons, so theyre pretty pointless, theyre just easyer to make and deliver than the others. but we got mad at china for obtaining information because theyre communist bud...they have a whole lot of 0 capability to develope any kind of massive bomb weapon...

and you cant really just nuke insurgents since they live within the reg iraqi people,

otherwise i dont know what to say it appals me to hear people use the term nuke so loosely, as if its just a simple dropping of a bomb.

also read here, on who has what - http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/summary.htm

I say we should just nuke the bastards. Incinerating or poisoning millions of foreigners is a small price to pay if it means preserving the lives of American soldiers.

You ARE being sarcastic right? It sounds like you are. I hope you are.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I'm not that kind of person.

Nuke them.

Best to wipe out a nation than to make them suffer.

normal bombs would cause. pain, suffering, homelessenes and tragic pasts etched in childrens memories.

If you going to end a war with no winners and many siners.

Nuke em.

well we have bombs as powerful as nuclear weapons, so theyre pretty pointless, theyre just easyer to make and deliver than the others. but we got mad at china for obtaining information because theyre communist bud...they have a whole lot of 0 capability to develope any kind of massive bomb weapon...


1. This isnt about Iraq, this is about a WAR situtation

2. No its not because they are communists, its because there ground forces are the largest on earth, and they are a superpower. It would be the same if they were any other government even democratic, which China is slowly moving towards. Capitalism is on the rise in China. I suggest you do more research. We wouldn't Like it if Russia got there hands on it either and they are not communist.

Take away the U.S. air superiority and China would slaughter our asses, that is why we couldn't do it in korea, china was a huge factor in why we didnt completely take over N. Korea when we had the chance.

I can answer you that.


Because Chinas nukes/bombs have enough range to hit Korea. IF the US fleets had to land there then they would get owned. :).

Japan has no intentions of joining the war (NOR the permission)


And by the time they got the permission form the highly confused American war council they would have nearly half the world against them.


China's Nukes may not reach them...but don't forget the Chinese are Kamikaze.


Their underground bunkers can withstand an A1 bomb.


Think of it like this:


1) Mad Korean dictator
2) War Hungry Nations
3) Anti-American Nations
4) Current world issues (Natural catastrophes)
5) If American had to do an on-foot invasion they would get outnumbered in the ration of 2:8-10


Also todays black markets have supplied china with anti nuke missiles and laser guided (homing) trajectories

China wouldn't really give a shit about blowing up a nuke on their neighbouring nations.

Yes they would. Otherwise we would have done it along time ago. That is why we don't go and drop bombs all over N. Korea right now. Trust me, theyd care If we made a mushroom cloud anywhere near their country, Same for us... If they dropped a nuke on mexico, canada, or even cuba we would care.

Your siganture says: Superior, Intellect..and the thing at the bototm left..i can't really find the right words.

You are using greek letetrs. ;p

It'd depend on the situation... how desperate, what their enemy's state is, what your state is, ect. I think that using a nuke should be used as a last resort, since it could start a nuclear war.

wow genious, how about you do your research, russia already has nuclear weapons...honestly were you even thinking when you said that?

also when did i even say the word iraq in my post? thats right i didnt...so before you complain about someone not doing there research, how about making sure you know what your talking about when refering to there post yah?

Russias nukes have low range.

In a war isttuation i would expect Russia to go against the alliance.

That race still holds grudge.

but we dont need to use bombs we can kill them smarter just take away there food and water

wow genious, how about you do your research, russia already has nuclear weapons...honestly were you even thinking when you said that?

also when did i even say the word iraq in my post? thats right i didnt...so before you complain about someone not doing there research, how about making sure you know what your talking about when refering to there post yah?

You really make this too easy...

and you cant really just nuke insurgents since they live within the reg iraqi people,

The real question is, where did Russia come up in this? i was talking about China. How about you pay attention to what the subject matter is. Russia came up with their own nuclear capabilities for the most part, altho that in itself is kinda shaky. China out right got the plans to the Neutron bomb straight out of the US. Trust me I know very well what I am talking about.

I am not a Genious.. maybe a Genius tho ;)

2. No its not because they are communists, its because there ground forces are the largest on earth, and they are a superpower. It would be the same if they were any other government even democratic, which China is slowly moving towards. Capitalism is on the rise in China. I suggest you do more research. We wouldn't Like it if Russia got there hands on it either and they are not communist.


thats where russia came into it, smart one


and for anyone interested - sam cohen invented the nuetron bomb, along with researched on the atom bomb i believe - and this is an interview sort of thing
http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm

A guilty as charged, Yet you were still mistaken and on top of that, I wasnt talking about a nuclear bomb, which I am well aware that they already had. Which was the cause to my confusion along with a pretty face I saw right before.

I was speaking of the Neutron bomb in which they do not have, unless they recently obtained it. So in the future I suggest you read all of what I have said before you accuse me of false information.

Evidence exists that China has neutron bombs stockpiled, and that the United States gave the Chinese the technology to build them.

Russia has a large quantity of such weapons, as well as the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

http://barbelith.com/topic/12796/from/140

theres your misinformation proof

I find it sad that you actually used some kind of forum of bickering people with hardly any hard evidence realible sources to present as "proof". A college professor would gladly laugh in your face and give you an F.

The internet is by far the worse place there is to obtain accurate information.

There is no proof we just handed over the blue prints, do you realize how stupid that is? With all of us spying on each other its easy to see how they got them.

From what we know the Russians indeed do or did have the largest arsenal of nuclear weaponry. Wonder why they have to make some deals with Iran? Russia's economic situtation has caused there navy fleet to be in shambles, most of there submarines are rusting in the ship yard, and yes there is photographic evidence to back it up. On top of that Russian doesnt have the money to research such new technology.

The question is, have they maintained their nuclear arsenal in operating conditions?... this in itself is questionable since it seems easy for people to walk right in and swipe them somehow without the russians knowing.

China does not have stockpiles of neutron bombs, that is absurd, we dont even have stockpiles of them. China's missle technology is ages behind Russia's and our own, they are just NOW getting into space.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/kinuclearweapons/stockpile.htm

there is a more accurate, very informative fact sheet. It isnt entirely factual because none of these countries are going to let out information like that.

its from the guy who invented the bomb, so if your calling him a bickering person, then i think you have no place in this debate...

If you acutally believe he is all knowing of what everyone has just because he invented it, then it is you that has no place in this debate.

Do you really think John Basedow knows how many people in china might own his workout tapes? Do you think Bob whatever his name is, Knows how many people use Oxi Clean?

The man may have made it, but he knows jackshit about chinese military intellegence. Not even our top military people know many things about china.

That statement is the most ridiciously thing I have heard in this thread.

You sent me page 5 of some forum, about people talking about science stuff now that I acutally read it. And you called it your "proof"

lol the forum wasnt the referance the article that a user posted in the topic was the referance, and considering he is the one who had the rights for the weapon, and sold it to the US himself, and still has partial ownership over it, yes he would know

plus its just a tad bit more imperitive to know who your selling a nuetron bomb to, than how many millions your selling face cleansors or work out tapes to

lol the forum wasnt the referance the article that a user posted in the topic was the referance, and considering he is the one who had the rights for the weapon, and sold it to the US himself, and still has partial ownership over it, yes he would know

plus its just a tad bit more imperitive to know who your selling a nuetron bomb to, than how many millions your selling face cleansors or work out tapes to Buddy, ever heard of the black market? Just because he sold 10 million bombs (just a random number) doesn't mean the people he sold them to haven't sold them.

No nukes for a simple reason: If America nukes Russia. Russia nukes America. Now, their allies will get into it... BAM nuclear holocaust. Didn't any of you see the end of the world on ebaums :P

plus its just a tad bit more imperitive to know who your selling a nuetron bomb to, than how many millions your selling face cleansors or work out tapes to

We dont sell neutron bombs to anyone. Its like building metal gear and selling it to Iran. -_-;

in order to sell something on the black market you have to know how to make it, and considering that man is a bloody genious, and it is one of the most complex weapons out there, no it wont be on the black market, very few nuclear weapons are on the black market without another country having built and sold it to them

if you nuked them it would most likely kill more than intended...

Nukes are to much of a big step... Only gun-ho people say they should use nukes... but what about all the innocent live they destroy? its a risk that we cant take...

but considers how many of our troops that can be lost, and the money that the country spends to prolong the war

we shouldent have even went into that war! (in my oppinion... sorry if i offend you).

To be fair, he may not have been talking about any specific war...

we shouldent have even went into that war! (in my oppinion... sorry if i offend you).


i agree, we never sgould of went into this war


To be fair, he may not have been talking about any specific war...


i wasnt realy, war in general is just to damn costly, in lives and in the wallet